Wikileaks believed at the time that Clinton was ready to send a drone to get rid of Assange. Between due process and a drone attack, I take due process any day.
When the WL backend for collateral murder was hosted at bahnhof in Sweden, moving it to .CH was among other reasons done because of certainly the US, and specifically & allegedly homeland security having launched a DDOS attack so strong it could have kicked Sweden offline.
When US agents started their smearing campaign against Assange in Sweden, they accidentally added smear to wikipedia that did not happen yet.
In Brussels, WL volunteers where threatened by US agents with silenced pistols in a parking lot.
Various so called "influencers", mostly academics and activistic people where payed to spread the false US narrative regarding everything related to Assange.
I live in Belgium, but never heard about this, when did this happen, do you have any references?
Citation?
The way I understand it they added something to wikipedia before it happened? How did they know it would happen?
On wikipedia articles you can view the history of pages, it would be interesting to locate the exact edit...
The State Dept under Clinton played fast and loose with it's own procedures and regulations and I have a friend who died in the Benghazi attack if you want to fight with me on this point.
More than 5% of the Section 702 wiretaps conducted under the last President's administration were performed illegally by their own admission.
False flag operations are part of our history and three-letter agencies have a history of being Wild and Crazy Kids.
Assange gets an extraordinary amount of political attention for even a public figure. It's perhaps an unreasonable conclusion for them to make but it's not _too unreasonable_.
Well, yes. The ever-increasing, horrible drone campaigns conducted from the Obama years onward as a tool of destabilization are one thing, but that doesn't make it reasonable to expect that they'd use them to assassinate high profile political agitators in first world countries or that they actually have the ability to do such a thing. The contexts are totally different, however the narrative IS in keeping with the typical far right behavior of cultivating the image of a victim terrorized by an all-powerful shadow cabal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_in_Euro...
Yes. There's a difference between drone programs 'crossing the line' say, in a hunt for known terrorists, they blow up a building that has civilians next door our just outside ... and arbitrary targeting of 'annoyances of the state'.
There are actually quite scant false flag operations in US history, and many of them weren't even false flag so much as 'purposefully misrepresented'.
And besides - there would be no 'false flag' with any kind of attempt to kill Assange.
The notion that Clinton (or any agency) would go after Assange with drones and hellfire missiles is well into crazyland territory. Not even the crazy among them are thinking it, it doesn't make sense really on any level I think.
What's the difference between "purposefully misrepresented" and a false flag?
I am honestly not sure -- I thought the concept of a false flag was a purposeful misrepresentation of an event.
A misrepresentation is just that.
So - if the US sent in CIA agents and planted WMD's in Iraq, and then had the UN inspectors show up and 'find' them - that would be a false flag.
Otherwise, say the inspectors find some WMD but it's only a small account, and then the government says "Look WMDs, therefore war!" - that's another scenario. The 2003 war was not based on false flag, more along the lines of misrepresentation of information.
Sometimes it can be shady, as I believe the gulf of Tonkin was a sketchy one. There was an incident between US and Vietnamese ships, but later, during a second encounter, the US knew it was unlikely there were Vietnamese ships (just misleading radar signature) but used it anyways as justification for escalation.
But consider that this is just populism anyhow - the 'good' reasons for conflict, are often at odds with the 'populist' reasons for war. WW2 being possibly a good example: it might have been much better for everyone were the Americans to be involved much earlier ... but the public was not down with it until Pearl Harbour.
Consider for a moment if there was no attack on Pearl Harbour. Consider if the Germans did not have to pull resources from the Russian front to fight in Italy, Africa and then France ... my gosh man that would re-shape world history.
As for Assange, I don't believe his leaks represent quite the malicious acting by the US that some believe, although maybe they are important, moreover, I understand that he has very serious character flaws - this from his relationships with his own allies at the Guardian and Spiegel etc. and his recent involvement with the Russians.
It was from before he was in the embassy, after the CableGate thing.
* November 4, 2016: BREAKING: Comey Mandates All FBI Agents Report to D.C. Offices; Prep for Raids, Possible Arrests in Clinton Probes
http://truepundit.com/breaking-comey-mandates-all-fbi-agents...
* December 27, 2016: Hillary Negotiating Secret Pardon With Obama’s White House Counsel Who Previously Worked for Clinton Family & White House
http://truepundit.com/hillary-negotiating-secret-pardon-with...
In other words, it publishes hoaxes.
Truepundit.com is not a news organization. It popped up in 2016 and was dedicated to publishing "articles" attacking Democrats. It makes no pretense to being an objective news source. None of its "scoops" were ever confirmed by a real news source.
The article "Comey Mandates All FBI Agents Report to D.C. Offices; Prep for Raids, Possible Arrests in Clinton Probes" was published days before the 2016 presidential election.
It was not a mistake. It was a deliberate, politically-motivated hoax.
https://youtu.be/ErH29hrpqvg?t=233
"I don't recall having said, but if I did it would have been a joke", while smirking.
That's politics code for "I totes said that, but I don't want to be caught in a lie if there's some record of it."
I'm sorry about that, but losing someone in an attack doesn't make your point any more valid.
You really think she would have drone bombed an embassy in the heart of fucking London? Come on. That's clearly delusional.
Source?
Here is another source that says 0.5% https://www.aclu.org/foia-document/semiannual-assessment-com...
1. That's not a drone strike.
2. That's not an assassination mission. OBL was more valuable alive than dead.
3. Islamibad isn't London and the UK isn't Pakistan. Hard power solutions are for countries that can't control their own airspace and can't/won't be able to capture the person of interest with their own legal/security apparatus. Name one drone strike outside the middle East.
4. You are comparing the most notorious terrorist in world history to a journalistic nuisance. The US would have to be retarded to pursue Assange to the same severity as they pursued OBL.
The Taliban refused to extradite bin Laden and the UN Security Council responded with sanctions (e.g. Security Council resolution 1267).
Despite that the Taliban had been in negotiation since 1998 and repeatedly offered to hand Bin Laden over to a third country.
SCR1267 did not authorise military action.
Everything you have written is true, yet misleading.
The Taliban were obliged by SCR1267 to turn over bin Laden. If they had intended to turn over bin Laden to a third country, they would have.
By your logic and the parent poster's logic ~13 people aside from the President and the laptops and coffee cups were also just as responsible for sending the team to kill him.
I did however basically say that she did not send the team to get him. That's what a President signs off on and military leaders plan.
> I never said that I questioned that in the slightest. Not sure where you get that at all.
You literally just questioned that.
And it was a CIA-led, ie. civilian led, operation, not a military-led one.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Opera...
U.S. Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) and at least 6 members from JSOC planned it in coordination with the CIA.
> The operation, code-named Operation Neptune Spear, was carried out in a CIA-led operation
Ironic. You've claimed multiple things. For each case, in the face of conflicting evidence, deflected to argue about another detail.
I'd take the drone strike. The end result is, with almost 100% certainty, going to be the same. At least with the drone attack, you don't have to waste away in prison until you die. It's all but certain he would be convicted.
I personally thought it was hilarious.